Nationwide +1.3 (-6.2 YoY)

julieq

ad9898 wrote: »

You know, I have this vision that you're really cute.:D

Especially when disembowelling birds, yes. OH often remarks on that, nervously.

mewbie_2

julieq wrote: »

Go on then, prove it. You did a great job with 8 fold a little while back

It really doesn't move significantly because of bubbles, because the whole point of averaging is to remove short term spikes. Or crashes for that matter, that was the point of the demonstration of the averages. You really can't shift the result much even with quite big swings in the numbers because of the weight of the accumulated numbers in the averaging.

And maybe you could stop calling people childish names?

The eight fold was bit of fun.

I have proved the trendline to myself using Excel. I have no need to prove it to anyone else, when the simplest of simple people can hopefully type some figures into a spreadsheet and make a little chart. Might I say, those who cannot perform this task stop blathering nonsense about the trend line.

I will stop calling people childish names when I stop losing my rag over stupid irritating windups from idiot bulls. ie. never.

julieq

lol, post the spreadsheet then

bluey890

I think mewbs trendline is over a year rather than the long term trend.

mewbie_2

julieq wrote: »

lol, post the spreadsheet then

Look me Julie. I cannot be @rsed. It is sufficient for me that I have the knowledge, and can go forward with the surety of someone who knows about things.

I must admit after endless bollox about the trend line that I thought I had lost what brain cells were remaining, even though I had assumed that the trend line was based on figures rather than drawing a line between ISTL's scrotum and Chucky's debt mountain.

Fortunately two minutes with my beloved spreadsheets and I am now satisfied.

bluey890

mewbie wrote: »

Fortunately two minutes with my beloved spreadsheets and I am now satisfied.

A little too much information.

julieq

You can't really beat the maths Mewbie dear, 30 odd years at around 2.9 needs some pretty large swings to affect the average significantly.

I'm guessing you realise this which is why you've got aggressive. Nothing quite so aggressive as a cornered bear.

As to why it's important, Graham may know, he brought the subject up. I don't mind all that much, I just happen to know how the graph works and why it's used.

Graham_Devon

julieq wrote: »

You can't really beat the maths Mewbie dear, 30 odd years at around 2.9 needs some pretty large swings to affect the average significantly.

I'm guessing you realise this which is why you've got aggressive. Nothing quite so aggressive as a cornered bear.

As to why it's important, Graham may know, he brought the subject up. I don't mind all that much, I just happen to know how the graph works and why it's used.

Graham just said it rises and falls.

You have now changed your tune from "no, it doesnt" to "it doesnt rise and fall much".

I want to know precise amounts Julie, or for you to concede this:

julieq wrote: »

It would stay where it is. That's the whole point of the line, it's showing the long term trend. Otherwise when the price rose to £200K you would raise the line (etc) in which case it would be the actual prices.

Was wrong, instead of houding everyone else.

So far you have said it stays where it is. It falls and rises. It doesnt' rise and fall much, told me to calm down when I'm calm and just to clarify, you got offended by the boom bust part here:

julieq wrote: »

Graham, are you pathologically incapable of admitting you had something wrong?

Booms move the line hardly at all, neither do busts - that is the maths (it's O level, not genius level). You were asking whether the current boom had moved the line up significantly from its natural position with (it is assumed) the intention of arguing that the HPC graph might well fit after all.

And it doesn't. It'd be a pointless line if it did.

So please, move on, or you'll be arguing a point you can't possibly win.

See. That bit your confused about, where you said:

julieq wrote: »

Graham, you have completely misunderstood. No-one cares whether you call changes crashes or falls or rises or booms or whatever you like. I have not picked you up on words, I am challenging your numbers.

Its up there ^^

This post may confuse you, or you may just pretend to be confused.

But, at least my posts have been consistent. Yours are all over. And I find it a little amusing that you are now saying do we need the childish lines, when quite clearly, your quite fond of them yourself

So what is it. Does the trend line move, or not? Remember, I never gave a timeframe.

mewbie_2

julieq wrote: »

you can't really beat the maths mewbie dear, 30 odd years at around 2.9 needs some pretty large swings to affect the average significantly..

indeed!! That's why the biggest bubble in house price history may have affected the figures!!!!!

julieq wrote: »

i'm guessing you realise this which is why you've got aggressive. Nothing quite so aggressive as a cornered bear.

aggressive!! Me!!! Why should i be aggressive? Some mse twit is telling me i can't work a spreadsheet!!! After the day i've had - what with the bloody nationwide crap.

julieq wrote: »

as to why it's important, graham may know, he brought the subject up. I don't mind all that much, i just happen to know how the graph works and why it's used.

you do not know how it works. You're a girl.

wolvoman

julieq wrote: »

I'm obviously not explaining this right

It has nothing to do with areas on each side of the graph.

You average the annual growth rate up to a particular time. In this case it gives 2.9% pa on average at July 2009.

You take the start date arbitrarily and note the average price at that point.

You then apply progressively the average rise (i.e. 2.9%) to the start price and compound it for successive points (i.e. x, x*1.029, x*1.029*1.029, etc). So you have a curve curving up, it can't be any other shape.

Because it's averaged it's difficult to affect it much via short term differences unless they're very big indeed.

BUT how has the average annual growth gone from 2.7% to 2.9% between 2007 and 2009?
Only price increases can cause this.

(unless of course the time axis got shifted 2 years too and an even more severe price drop was taken from the LHS of the time axis - unlikely)